Avodah Mailing List

Volume 15 : Number 031

Thursday, June 9 2005

• Re: innocents dying
• Re: hashkafa and psak
• Re: SheLo Asani Isha
• Re: Dealing with an apostate Jew
• Re: Gezel Shemi'ah
• Re: SheLo Asani Isha
• Re: Gezel Shemi'ah
• Re: Learning Halachos from Agadah
• Re: RYBS matza ashira
• Re: alarm clocks on shabbos
• Re: Torah before Sinai
• Beards - Past and Present
• Re: Beards - Past and Present
• Re:
• Re: The robber and the thief

In v15n29, RETurkel wrote:
: My question dealt with the interpretaion of dreams which seems to be
: supernatural.

If someone believes there are laws of supernature beyond simple sechar
va'onesh, then why is this more of a question than someone who died
because somone else drove carelessly?

I've repeatedly asked the question of where such laws have a place
in Hashem's beri'ah. Physical causality allows the predictability
necessary for bechirah. Here there is no parallel role.

We also have the problem that it would mean forces in higher olamos
that aren't more about ve'asisa hatov vehayashar than forces in this
one. See again (IOW, search the archive if you can't find the maqor)
REED on olamos: olam ha'asiyah is one in which laws like gravity are
absolute; in olam hayetzirah justice and the like are.

(My asking the how and why shouldn't be taken as my questioning the
existence of the what.)

: In the same vein a recent daf yomi stated that a wife dies because of
: her husbands false vows. While I can understand the punishment of young
: children for the sins of their parents I do not understand why a wife
: gets punished for her husband's sin.

I think the wife dies of her own sin.

The husband is widowed (widowered?) of his own sin.

Why must it be about a single cause? In HQBH's perspective, everything
is "The Perfect Storm" (apologies for the movie reference, I don't even
know if I understood the title correctly).

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 44th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        6 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Gevurah sheb'Malchus: What type of justice
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            does unity demand?

R S Coffer wrote:
>> The CI's sevarah about Hillel's lack of belief in a personal mashiach
>> only works because of the laws of pesaq. If it's aggadita, then RYSE's
>> opinion is no more binding than RSRH's, and yeish al mi lismokh even
>> for someone who consistently follows him in inyanei halakhah.

> The type of Aggadita you are referring to have no ramifications in halachah
> because they have no practical application....
> However, in this case, the "aggadita" you are referring to has very
> practical applications; according to RYSE and the gedolim who signed on the
> ban, it is assur to read RNS's book.

Isn't that circular? You're saying there's a lema'aseh based on its being
labeled kefirah and the label is meaningful because it's lema'ash.

> As far as your CI re R' Hillel, I am not aware of
> this source (mareh makom please?) but I have my own sevara regarding R'
> Hillel which I will outline shortly.

It was posted here repeatedly. You couldn't know what I was talking
about, though, because I typod, I for S. The CS,
Shu"t, YD 356. Here's RGS's translation from
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol12/v12n119.shtml#09>:
> And on this, too, the halacha is not like him. One who says 'There
> is no mashiach' and holds like Rabbi Hillel is a kofer on the entire
> Torah that includes 'acharei rabim le-hatos'. Since the sages of Israel
> were more than he and disagreed with him, a person is not able to follow
> him. Similarly (al derech mashal), in the place of R' Eliezer they would
> chop wood [on Shabbos] to make logs in order to forge iron for the needs
> of a circumcision. After the halacha was determined by many of the sages
> of Israel against him, one who does so on Shabbos with witnesses and
> warning is to be stoned and cannot say "I hold like R' Eliezer."

>> Without
>> pesaq, there is no azlinan basar rubah, no need to follow one's poseiq
>> as opposed to a seifer, etc... If it's pesaq, and it doesn't have
>> implications about my wine or (U) shechitah, then in what din is RYSE
>> pasqening?

> Until now, I have been addressing your issues from the standpoint of
> aggadita which I feel (in some cases incl. our present topic) is binding.

And I've been questioning the grounds of your feeling. The Rambam
explicitly says it is not (as is the implication from others who rule
out azlinan basar ruba WRT aggadita in particular), and we have seen no
sources who say otherwise.

> However, in addition, I feel that RYSE's injunction is a full blown
> pesak and yet I don't feel that a necessary consequence of that pesak
> would be the invalidation someone like your self's wine or shechita just
> as R' Hillel's wine or shechita was not invalidated by Chazal...

But they DID invalidate the wine and shechita of someone after the pesaq.
That's my point.

...
> In the sefer haikkarim's words, this man is a "toeh
> bi'eeyuno, choteh bi'shogeg, v'tzarich kapara".

And you still can't drink his wine. Otherwise there would be no problem
with the wine of a tinoq shenishba.

...
>> My real problem is that I ironically find that RYSE and R' Meir [do you
>> mean Moshe?] Shapiro are apparently in agreement with the notion that
>> we do not accept the Rambam's ikkarim (or some derivative of them) as
>> definitive pesaq for what is kefirah... I'm trying to understand different
>> shitos on the limits of what is O, and what is beyond eilu va'eilu.

> I think my approach above (culled from the sefer haIkkarim) is a good start.

Actually I meant R' Marc Shapiro. We discussed his position that the
Rambam's Ikkarim shouldn't define O back when his article came out (at
that time, he contributed) and again when his book did (which discussion
included the post from RGS quoted above). RMS believes that the acceptance
of the 13 ikkarim as the limits of hashkafah is part of the hamon am's
naivite. Here we find RYSE and a different RMS saying the same thing,
but from the other direction...

As RAF posted besheim RMWillig... It seems to be a case of kol hamosif,
gorei'ah.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 44th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        6 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Gevurah sheb'Malchus: What type of justice
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            does unity demand?

In v15n29, RHM wrote:
: I guess what I am trying to say is that Schar VeOnesh is integral to
: Mitzvah observance. It is impossible for me to imagine God mandating
: Mitzvah observance without Schar VeOnesh....

It is for me as well, as I don't see the purpose in the mitvah. As per
another post of mine that I'm writing in this sitting. My problem is not
with the possible motivation I would have, but what motivation would
HQBH have. To whatever extent we can understand and learn from His
motivation, it was leheitiv -- that's agreed upon across the spectrum
from R' Saadia Gaon to the Ramchal.

...
: That doesn't mean I think all of our actions should be for the purpose of
: getting Schar. There is a higher concept of doing a Mitzva not because
: you want the Schar but because you love God. But if you take away Schar
: VeOnesh entirely, it just wouldn't make sense to me, why one should ever
: do Mitzvos at all? There has to be the concept of Schar. Then one can
: Darshan and say, the best way of doing Mitzvos is... not to look at the
: Schar but to do it becuase of Ahavas Hashem. But, Schar ...MUST... exist.

I don't understand this paragraph. You start by giving a motivation other
than sechar, and close by saying thre can be no motivation but sechar.

How's this for a reason: In order for life to have meaning, one should
fulfil the purpose for which you are created. No other meaning can be
as significant. We don't know that purpose (beyond the glimmer I mention
above), so we just trust Him as to what would further it. Lekach notzarta.
Which, IIRC, was given as part of the question -- so then why expect
sechar?

:> We thank G-d for having more mitzvos. Women thank G-d for being more
:> like His Ratzon. Each is a beautiful thing. One shouldn't feel upset
:> for having one because it's mutually exclusive with the other. And each
:> justifies a berakhah for the people who have it. Even if the exchange
:> is a zero-sum game, one still should be happy with his/her positives.

: I agree, but the Brachos are not the same. The Bracha for men should
: have been SheMarbeh es Mitzvosai...

Nu, so you have a question on the matbei'ah. That's different than a
question on what the berakhah is about. We know it's about mitzvos,
we have the author's say-so. The question now is why would that become
three "thank G-d I'm not". The Tur addresses it, but in a manner that I
(and others here) didn't understand. On a very different note I suggested
something, referencing the Xian Bible, that these three class distinction
WRT halakhah was an issue between us and the minim.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 44th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        6 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Gevurah sheb'Malchus: What type of justice
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            does unity demand?

Harry Maryles <hmaryles@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Anonymous Chaver <chaveir@aishdas.org> wrote:
>> A young man (his father was Jewish, his mother muslim, both non-practicing
>> at the time) converted 15 years ago. He married and has 4 children.

> These are enormous problems. First of all there is the question of
> whether the conversion was actually legitimate. 

It has been pointed out to me that the situation involves children that
are completely Jewish... being born of a Jewish mother.

Of course that should have been obvious to me but I was asleep at the
switch. As such my original post really doesn't make much sense so I
wish to retract and apologize for any confusion.

HM

Actually, I just thought of a much simpler solution to the permissability
of Hillel's actions.

According to the Maharsha (ad loc, Yuma 35b) the money was used to pay
guards. He offered two different (although not mutually exclusive)
reasons for them:
1- The batei medrash were far from cities and civilization. The guards
were for safety.
2- The higher-level batei medrash only accepted the more serious students
(cf Berakhos 28a). They had guards to keep out the hangers on.

Hillel, on the roof, was not directly being guarded nor was he benefiting
from the lack of rifraf in the room.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 44th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        6 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Gevurah sheb'Malchus: What type of justice
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            does unity demand?

Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
> In v15n29, RHM wrote:
>: I guess what I am trying to say is that Schar VeOnesh is integral to
>: Mitzvah observance. It is impossible for me to imagine God mandating
>: Mitzvah observance without Schar VeOnesh....

> It is for me as well, as I don't see the purpose in the mitvah. As per
> another post of mine that I'm writing in this sitting. My problem is not
> with the possible motivation I would have, but what motivation would
> HQBH have. To whatever extent we can understand and learn from His
> motivation, it was leheitiv -- that's agreed upon across the spectrum
> from R' Saadia Gaon to the Ramchal.

In my opinion, God's motivation cannot be questioned because it is
impossible for the human mind to comprehend the mind of the Infinite.
Why did God create the universe? Why did he need it and if He needs
it so much why give Mankind Bechira Chafshis? And what does the word
"need" mean in a Godly context? All these are questions whose answers
defy rational thinking. My question was really about human motivation
for Mitzva observance. We must have a concept of Schar VeOnesh or there
can be no human motivation to do the Mitzvos.

> ...
>: That doesn't mean I think all of our actions should be for the purpose of
>: getting Schar. There is a higher concept of doing a Mitzva not because
>: you want the Schar but because you love God. But if you take away Schar
>: VeOnesh entirely, it just wouldn't make sense to me, why one should ever
>: do Mitzvos at all? There has to be the concept of Schar. Then one can
>: Darshan and say, the best way of doing Mitzvos is... not to look at the
>: Schar but to do it becuase of Ahavas Hashem. But, Schar ...MUST... exist.

> I don't understand this paragraph. You start by giving a motivation other
> than sechar, and close by saying thre can be no motivation but sechar.

Let me try again. Schar VeOnesh is an absolute necessity without which
Mitzvah observance is a non-starter. Once you establish a realtionship
between Mitzvah observance and Schar VeOnesh, you can then do the Mitzvah
because of Ahavas HaShem. This means that one's realtionship with God
is one of love not exclusively based on Schar. Schar VeOnseh is merely
the proof that God cares about what we do. Once we know that God cares
we can do the Mitzvah out of love and not Al Menas L'Kabel Pras.(This
is how I understand that MIshna in Avos.) We know the Schar is there
but it is secondary. We do not even necessarily know what the Schar is
but it doesn't matter. It only matters that we do God's wishes and the
Schar will take care of itself.

It is like the love of a parent for a child and then a child for a
parent. The parent will somehow communicate his or her love for the child
in an intangible way. The child then senses that love and reciprocates
by doing the will of his parent, not necessarily because the parent will
physically reward him, but because the child knows that the parent loves
him and the child acts on that love instinctively. God shows us his love
by giving us Schar in Olam HaBah. We intuit from that that He loves us
and wants us to do well (by doing His will). If a parent never transmits
any love to a child that child will never want to obey that parent in
any way. Similarly if God does not communicate his love (through the
concept of Schar VeOnesh) we will have no motivation to listen to him.

> How's this for a reason: In order for life to have meaning, 

Meaning? What does it mean to say life has meaning? Meaning to who?
God? So, what do I care if my life has meaning to God? If He doesn't
provide Schar VeOnesh it won't ever matter to me.

> one should fulfil the purpose for which you are created.

Why? Why bother? It has meaning to God? So what?

> No other meaning can be
> as significant. We don't know that purpose (beyond the glimmer I mention
> above), so we just trust Him as to what would further it. Lekach notzarta.
> Which, IIRC, was given as part of the question -- so then why expect
> sechar?

Once again, who cares? What is the point of fulfilment? In the end I
and my Neshama will remain the same. No Schar, No Onesh, No change.
(Change implies Schar VeOnesh).

>:> We thank G-d for having more mitzvos. Women thank G-d for being more
>:> like His Ratzon. Each is a beautiful thing. One shouldn't feel upset
>:> for having one because it's mutually exclusive with the other. And each
>:> justifies a berakhah for the people who have it. Even if the exchange
>:> is a zero-sum game, one still should be happy with his/her positives.

>: I agree, but the Brachos are not the same. The Bracha for men should
>: have been SheMarbeh es Mitzvosai...

> Nu, so you have a question on the matbei'ah. That's different than a
> question on what the berakhah is about. 
> We know it's about mitzvos...

Yes, but that leaves the whole question open. Once you have that question
you must assume that there are other reasons for authoring the Bracha in
the negative ...which brings up the whole idea that there is something
negative in being a woman aside from the fact that they have less mitzvos,
yet their status of equality in the eyes of God through separate but
equal modalities must be extant, etc.

My quest for an answer remains unsatisfeid.

HM

Mon, 6 Jun 2005 "Moshe Yehuda Gluck" <mygareivim@gmail.com> posted:
> RMB:
>> Last, Hillel didn't deprive them of income by going to the roof. His
>> alternative was not learning and they still wouldn't be paid.

MYG:
> If that's the case, wouldn't it be permissable (at least regarding
> hasagas g'vul) for someone to copy an album s/he wouldn't buy anyway?

Actually, when I was in MTJ of S.I., R' Reuvain Feinstein held this
hetter. (He was talking about copying sefarim)

Zvi Lampel

In a message dated 6/1/2005 11:14:27pm EST, nossondovid@yahoo.com writes:
> I know there is a machklos the Noda B'yehudah Yoreh Deah II: 161
> VS. R.Akiva Eiger in Berachos, Perek 5 if you can learn Halachos from
> the Agados in the Gemara.the Noda B'yehudah the writes that we cannot
> learn any Halachos from Agadah, even when there is no contradiction from
> another Gemara since there only there to teach Musar and concepts of
> Torah, not halacha.On the other hand we find R.Akiva Eiger who says we
> can rely on agadah to learn halacha if it was not discussed in the Gemara.

> So I want to know if there are any examples of a real Halacha (rather
> then a minhag) that's learned from agadah.

I'm not familiar wtih the specifics of this machlokes. The Nodeh Biyhuda
rejects learning halcha from midrashim. See the Maharil/ Rema re:
becoming a sandek twice for the smae father, the pischei Tshuva bieur
hagra, taz etc. The Noda biyhuda is brought down by the pischei Teshuva
and is very adamanet about not wanting to deal with a any halcah w/o a
root in the Bavli

However, Ashkenazim darshen plenty of halachos.

Question: What is the {earliest} source for unmarried boys/men not
wearing a tallis gadol?
Also
What is the earliest source for davening ma'ariv late on the first night
of Shavuos due to "Temimos tiheyna"? {NB: Not kiddush - arvis}

However, lekulei almo we can learn metzius from aggadita. 

Darash Rrav Simlai {Makkos 24} is clearly aggadic but Rambam {and other
poskim} take it as "normative" halachah that there MUST be 613 mitzvos
in the Torah, unlike Halachos G'dolos who does not thinkg that 613 is
necessraily alluding to d''oraissos.

BTW, Rambam ADDS miSinai. Rav Simlai's Drasha is that MOSHE commanded
611 and HKBH gave us 2 directly. Torah Tziva lanu moshe is in V'sos
habracha, about 39+ years AFTER Sinai. In no way does Rav Simlai demand
that all 613 be given at Sinai, none before and none after.

The Rambam is problematic. Bnos Zlaphchad and Pesach Sheini are REALLY
difficult to say they stemmed from Sinai. The Gmara just demands that
they come from Moshe RAbbeinu to us. And since the summation is in
v''Zos Habracha, why limit it to ma'mad ha Sinai? But the Rambam does
and part of his dogma is predicated upon aggadah

Kol Tuv,
R. Rich Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@alumnimail.yu.edu

In a message dated 5/17/2005 4:51:58pm EST, jcoh003@yahoo.com writes:
> When the Rambam discusses the definition of Matza Ashira that you are not
> yotze with, he mentions several dicrete categories of liquids: chalav,
> yayin and there might be a few more -ayen sham. But he seems to exclude
> 'me perot' or eggs. I think it might be a stira to how he describes the
> chimutz process earlier, but I haven't really learnt this sugya. What
> I hear in a shiur was simply that RYBS was medayek from this Rambam,
> that the Rambam holds you could be yotze on regular egg matza.

IIRC the Kessef Mishnah notes the Rambam says Kayotze Bo and ergo makes no 
distinction between eggs and other mei peiros.  Ayein Sham

Although there is no doubt that the Rambam COULD be read davka, it
seems imho a totally unnecesary diyyuk given the Rambam's lashon here
and elsewher and the Kessef Mishna is arfaik not contradicted by any of
the early nos'ei keilim.

Kol Tuv,
R. Rich Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@alumnimail.yu.edu

On Thu, 19 May 2005 Gershon Seif wrote:
> This past shabbos I was told by someone that a well known Maggid shiur
> in our city quoted some teshuva that said that it is proper for bnei
> Torah to not use alarm clocks on shabbos. Does anyone know of the mekor
> for this? 

In a message dated 5/22/2005 9:52:07am EDT, rivkyc@sympatico.ca writes:
> No, but I do have a mekor that alarm clocks are entirely mutar to use on
> shabbos. See sh'v Beer Moshe chelek gimmel.

See Tur Orach 252 plus Darchei Moshe. 

briefly
There is no issur of shvisas keilim on Shabbos
Threre IS an issur according to some if it makes noise,
Grandfather clocks are exempted BECAUSE everyone knows the clocks are
set before Shabbos ergo the noise is not a cause for cheshad
therefore alarm clocks - which are also set as a rule before hand -
are not a problem.

Kol Tuv,
R. Rich Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@alumnimail.yu.edu

In a message dated 5/15/2005 7:58:34am EDT, rivkyc@sympatico.ca writes:
> The Rambam states that since mila, gid hanasheh etc. are all part of
> taryag mitzvos, and the gemmara in makos says that 613 mitzvos were given
> at Sinai, this is proof that all pre-Sinai mitzvos were repeated at Sinai.

> As an aside, the sefarim say that there were three "Toros" that preceded
> Toras Moshe; Toras Adam, Toras Noach and Toras Avraham.

While I essentiall agree I would rephrase this slightly:

According to the Rambam we may be doing doing mitzvos today that
pre-existed Mattan Tora,nevertheless the sole impetus is mattan torah
and NOT the "koach" it had pre-Mattan Torah

This is consistent with the principle that only Moshe's mitzvos cannot
be overturned, therefore mitzvos from nevi'im such as Noach, vraham
or Ya'akov lich'ora COULD be overturned by a greater navi. So it is
necesary for the Rambam to say all 613 had Moshe's unreapalable power.

My quibble with the Rambam in another thread is that the gmara does NOT
insist on 613 at Sinai davka rather it insists upon Moshe giving us
611 {Makkos 24 darash R. Simlai}

Kol Tuv,
R. Rich Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@alumnimail.yu.edu

In his post on Monday, May 23 2005 v15n20 Rabbi Zvi Lampel wrote,
> Beards were out (to avoid yehora) and tsitsis were in ('because the
> egged with its tsitsis is meant to be worn as a garment, not partly in
> nd partly out'). And if a new bochur with a beard would become a member
> f the yeshiva (on a contingency basis--it was forever on a contingency
> asis) he would have to go through the process of being mattir a nedder
> nd remove it."

Readers unfamiliar with the Derech of Lithuanian yeshivas before World War
II may find it hard to comprehend this approach to beards and Tzitzis.
However, the truth is that in yeshivas such as Slabodka, Telshe, and
Mir, unmarried bochrim were not allowed to wear beards. In the Mir the
bochrim not only did not wear their Tzitzis out, but they did not take
them out when saying Krias Sh'ma. It was considered unseemly for them to
be "fishing around" for their Tzitzis during davening. This approach to
beards and Tzitzis was continued in the United States in yeshivas founded
by Roshei Yeshiva who had studied in Lithuania. Dr. Manfred Lehmann,
who came to Ner Yisroel in 1941, wrote, "At that time there were no
black hats, not even beards, nor any chasidim, among the students. The
Lithuanian influence, especially by the mussar teachings of the Mir
Yeshiva, dictated that any outer demonstrations of frumkeit (piety)­like
black clothes, peyes, etc.­were signs of gayve (haughtiness) and had
to be shunned. Hence the emphasis on light-colored suits and hats and
clean-shaven faces - even among the oldest talmidim."[i] A friend of mine
who studied in Bais Medrash Govoha in the Sixties and Seventies wrote
me, "When I first came to BMG (in 1965), the rule was unless you are
Chassidish, bochrim were strongly discouraged from having beards. There
were always some bochurim who kept their beard after sefira for Shavuos
or the like, and they were spoken to to make sure it came off." [ii]

Rav Davis himself did not grow a beard until 1944, when he was 37. It may
well be that given the "complexion" of today's yeshiva world, Rav Davis
would not have the same policy towards beards and Tzitzis that he had
then. On the other hand, he was a man who was concerned with substance,
not form. Perhaps, given the emphasis that we see in some circles today
on externalities, he would have continued his policy of not allowing
unmarried bochrim to grow beards and wear their Tzitzis out. After all,
he was an innovator who was not afraid to "buck the establishment"
when he felt it was appropriate.

Yitzchok Levine


[i] Baltimore Half a Century Ago, Manfred Lehmann,
    <http://www.manfredlehmann.com/news/news_detail.cgi/55/0>
[ii] Personal email from R. Shmaryahu Miller, June 8, 2005.

L. E. Levine wrote:
> [...] In the Mir the bochrim not only did not wear their Tzitzis out,  
> but they did not take them out when saying Krias Sh'ma. It was  
> considered unseemly for them to be "fishing around" for their Tzitzis  
> during davening.

There also might have been involved a fear of hefsek. If they didn't
take them out, they hardly kissed them, but did they touch-'n-kiss their
tefillin during krishme lainen?

Lipman Phillip Minden

Something I didn't see stressed in the suggested answers to my question
(and therefore possibly didn't get attention) that was core to the
question itself: I'm not asking about churban bayis in general. I was
asking about galus haShechinah in particular. It would seem that if the
Shechinah is sheruyah through halakhah, compliance to halakhhah without
going beyond should not cause galus haShechinah.

R Zvi Lampel wrote:
> So, (although elsewhere it refers to anyone's personal behavior), it is
> (as someone else posted) part of the "daled amos shel halachah;" and
> in the context of this Gemara and Yerushalayim's destruction, "lifnim
> m'shuros ha-din" is a Torah requirement, referring to how a beis din
> should conduct itself. Rebbi Yochonon is therefore placing blame for
> the Destruction on the courts for not conducting themselves properly,
> by not following the "four amos shel halachah."

(Nit: the name of the fourth letter is "dalet", as in "Shomer Dalsos
Yisrael". The gemara spells it with a tav.)

You're referring to a basic paradox. The way it was phrased in a previous
go around was: If it's assur to be a "menuval birshus haTorah" then in
what sense is it "birshus haTorah"?

Except that here, the law is to go lifnim mishuras hadin, not specifying
which way is most appropriate for each individual. There, when it was
phrased as a prohibition, it was more accute: The scope is narrowed to
the specific act the person is contemplating. Can this person do this
particular act or not?

I therefore can't comment on RZL's resolution, as I don't have the
underlying paradox worked out. However, to whatever extent I understand
it, I can "hear" it.

> 2. In the Introduction to his Mishnah Commentary, the Rambam chooses this
> very Chazal... he cites it without the introductory phrase, "from the
> day that the Beis HaMikdash was destroyed." And his objection to taking
> the maamer on the surface is: "And at the time of Shem and Ayver, and
> afterwards, when there was as of yet no halachah, is it possible to
> say that Hakadosh Baruch Hu had no part in the world at all?! He goes
> on to explain the maamer as referring to the purpose of the world being
> the production of men who reach perfection in their thoughts of Hashem
> and their deeds....

According to the Rambam, the purpose of mitzvos is the perfection of one's
thoughts of Hashem. Olam haBa is a consequence of those thoughts. (By
having the tzurah of His nitzchiyus in one's soul, one gets a measure
of nitzchiyus.) It's similarity of yodei'ah and Yadu'ah that is the
closeness to HQBH that is the sechar, lehanos miziv haShachinah.

Perhaps he is saying that today, one can only get that level of yedi'ah
through halakhah. However, in the past, one could do so from experiencing
the Miqdash, or in Sheim and Eiver's day, by pursuit of the ideal without
clearcut rules...

Which then lead me to think of a different approach to answering my
question. The gemara says that the 4 amos of halakhah are a necessary
precondition for the Shechinah's presence. It does not say that halakhah
is a sufficient condition. IOW, when one says that the Shechinah as
no place in this world beyond the 4 amos of halakhah it isn't saying
that the entire 4 amos is Its place. Efshar that before churban bayis,
the Shechinah would join in the miqdash idealists who often went beyond
shuras hadin in some ways but were not quite shomerei Torah umitzvos
in others, and afterward one needs both that kind of idealism and the
shemirah simultaneously.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 46th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        6 weeks and 4 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Netzach sheb'Malchus: How can some forms of
Fax: (270) 514-1507                         "unity" be over domineering?

R Sholom Simon wrote:
> We all learn about the thief paying kofel, etc., if he is caught and
> convicted by the beis din, etc. And so if the thief admits, he simple
> has to re-imburse the item.

> So... for a non-G-d-fearing person, what's the disincentive for
> robberty or theivery? If you get caught, just admit, and, economically
> speaking, there's no net loss. So, you have something to gain (the
> item), and nothing to lose (just return it if caught)....

If I may (unsurprisingly) take a philosophical detour...

What's the purpose of beis din's penology?

1- I think you just proved it's not to provide a disincentive.

Here are some other possibilities.

2- Revenge. I think we can rule this out, because the individual is
prohibited from taking neqamah. While this allows for the possibility
that the individual is banned because it's the kehillah's job, it seems
clear that we hold that role is entirely HQBH's -- and even then it's
only an anthropomorphication. "Kel neqamos Hashem." "Hashem yiqom damo."

(Frankly, revenge pays a larger role in US law then we like to
admit. Which is why the family of murder victims get to speak before
sentencing.)

3- IIRC, you're somewhat familiar with the US notion of prisons as a
"correctional" system. IOW, that the purpose of punishment is to educate
the criminal after the act.

4- To provide a cultural disinsentive. IOW, the onesh sets a tone for
the community, even if it never is invoked. After all, how many people
ever died for chillul Shabbos, with eidus, hasra'ah, proof he heard the
hasra'ah, derishah vechaqira, etc... It's a kind of education for the
potential criminal. IMHO, this is peshat in "uvi'arta hara'ah miqirbekha".

5- We know that oneshim provide kaparah. This is IMHO very related to #3,
onesh leads to teshuvah leads to kaparah. It also is plausibly peshat
in "uvi'arta hara'ah" except that the pasuq seems to be talking about
removing ra from the kelal, not the chotei.

Other ideas?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 46th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        6 weeks and 4 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Netzach sheb'Malchus: How can some forms of
Fax: (270) 514-1507                         "unity" be over domineering?

*********************


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]